Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:28:53 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [announce] [patch] KVM paravirtualization for Linux |
| |
* Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> wrote:
> >>What you really want is more like > >>EXPORT_SYMBOL_READABLE_GPL(paravirt_ops); > >> > > > >yep. Not a big issue - what is important is to put the paravirt ops > >into the read-only section so that it's somewhat harder for rootkits > >to modify. (Also, it needs to be made clear that this is fundamental, > >lowlevel system functionality written by people under the GPLv2, so > >that if you utilize it beyond its original purpose, using its > >internals, you likely create a work derived from the kernel. > >Something simple as irq disabling probably doesnt qualify, and that > >we exported to modules for a long time, but lots of other details do. > >So the existence of paravirt_ops isnt a free-for all.) > > I agree completely. It would be nice to have a way to make certain > kernel structures available, but non-mutable to non-GPL modules.
the thing is, we are not 'making these available to non-GPL modules'. The _GPL postfix does not turn the other normal exports from grey into white. The _GPL postfix turns exports into almost-black for non-GPL modules. The rest is still grey.
in this case, i'd only make local_irq_*() available to modules (of any type), not the other paravirt ops. Exporting the whole of paravirt_ops was a mistake, and this has to be fixed before 2.6.20. I'll cook up a patch.
> >yes - this limit is easily triggered via the KVM/Qemu virtual serial > >drivers. You can think of "kvm_paravirt" as "Linux paravirt", it's > >just a flag. > > Can't you just test paravirt_enabled() in that case?
yep - i've changed this in my tree.
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |